THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:
"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.
“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).
“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.
It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.
" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.
"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.
“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
2 FOIL requests are pending before the Village of Delhi - as to the public bidding regarding the fire-damaged building on Main Street, and as to enforceability of the Village taxes
In view of that, I filed a FOIL request today with the Village of Delhi seeking documents to verify how the notice went and how the bidding goes.
I will publish the Village of Delhi's responses to the FOIL.
I also demanded the Village of Delhi to comply with my FOIL request for documents indicating enforcement against people who do not pay village taxes that the Mayor of the Village of Delhi personally promised will start happening at a September 2014 public meeting that I have a sound recording of, including the mayor's pledge.
My interest in the Village of Delhi's enforcement actions against delinquent taxpayers that the mayor promised back in September of 2014 is not idle. I am one of diligent taxpayers who is taken advantage of by taxpayers who adamantly do not pay taxes, and the Village of Delhi lamented that there is no legal mechanism of enforcement against non-payers of Village taxes.
At this "historic" public meeting, the mayor of the Village of Delhi said, again, back in September of 2014, that the Village of Delhi will try to file a "test" case against a non-payer of taxes and see how it goes in court.
All I asked for is to see whether the Village of Delhi DID file that test case, or whether it continues to not enforce its taxes.
If there is no legal mechanism to enforce non-payment of taxes for the Village of Delhi, there is no reason why the rest of us, diligent taxpayers, should pay Village of Delhi taxes at all, while the non-payers have the benefit of Village services given to them without any payment, at our expense.
I will publish responses of the Village of Delhi on this blog.